Denying it was a Ponzi scheme, INetGlobal says a federal judge should release about $25 million, business records and computer equipment seized in an investigation by the U.S. Secret Service last month because the property was “unlawfully seized.”

Meanwhile, INetGlobal has accused its former chief executive officer — whom it describes as a “informant” who lied to the Secret Service — of hatching a plot to extort $500,000 from the company about seven weeks prior to the Feb. 23 raid.

Steven Keough, the former CEO, could not be reached for comment on this story.

INetGlobal also accused the Secret Service of lying.

At the same time, the company said it was part of a family of companies that are “clean, legitimate and profitable businesses,” and it accused the government of leaking the search-warrant affidavit in the case to the media, specifically citing the PP Blog.

INetGlobal and its operator, Steve Renner, are represented by Jon Hopeman. No criminal charges have been filed against Renner or the company.

A spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney B. Todd Jones declined to comment on INetGlobal’s court filings, saying that prosecutors would litigate the case in court and not in the media.

Also filing papers for INetGlobal in the case was attorney Mark J. Kallenbach.

Government Did Not ContactÂ PP Blog; PP Blog Did Not Contact Government

“None of the information we published was obtained as a result of the government or an agent contacting the Blog and providing information for a story,” the PP Blog said. “Nor did the Blog contact the government or an agent to obtain the information.”

An exhibit the company produced for U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank reproduced a story the Blog published at 1:41 a.m. (ET) Feb. 25. The story was based on the Secret Service affidavit, which the Blog obtained from a government website open to any person with an Internet connection.

In its court filings, INetGlobal complained that its attorneys did not get a copy of the affidavit until Feb. 26.

“As of February 25, 2010, I had tried to get a copy of the affidavit,” Kallenbach wrote. “I was informed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office it was sealed. I was not provided a copy until February 26, 2010 at 1:57 p.m., 36 hours after the press had it. Someone leaked the affidavit to the press.”

The PP Blog was the first news outlet to publish information from the affidavit.

No member of government contacted the Blog though any means to arrange for access — exclusive or otherwise — to the material. Nor did the Blog contact any member of government to seek access — exclusive or otherwise — to the material. The Blog obtained the affidavit through the normal course of its reporting.

A Fiery Defense

Attorneys for Renner, INetGlobal and Inter-Mark Corp., the parent company of INetGlobal, appear ready to come out firing.

Among the documents the attorneys plan to present to Frank is a copy of an email dated Jan. 6 from Steven Keough, the former CEO, to attorney Aaron Hall of Minneapolis.

Keough, according to the email, said he was declining to accept a severance proposal offered by the company.

“If your client, Mr. Renner, is serious about resolving this quickly and amicably, then the minimum acceptable severance payment amount must be $500,000 — payable immediately,” the email read. “This reflects the promised signing bonus of $212,000 and promised one year salary of $288,000.”

The email suggested Keough was set on the amount of $500,000 and unwilling to negotiate. Keough proposed that Hall schedule a meeting at a place convenient for Hall on Jan. 8.

“Come with a check and signable documents to the meeting location,” the email read. “After noon on Friday all bets are off as to how this matter will be handled.”

The email was signed “Thank you,” followed by the word “Regards.” Keough’s name appeared below the closing.

INetGlobal argued that the email was evidence of an extortion plot.

“On January 6, 2010, Mr. Keough attempted to extort over $500,000 from iNetGlobal,” Kallenbach argued in a brief. “He demanded payment of the money by 5:00 p.m. that day or all bets are off. According to the Secret Service’s affidavit, Keough contacted the government in this matter for the first time on January 8, 2010.”

Why Kallenbach referenced the time of 5 p.m. — and not noon, as the email referenced — was not immediately clear. Also unclear was the amount INetGlobal offered in the severance package that Keough purportedly rejected.

Whether Keough could argue the amount was too small and did not reflect his understanding of how he would be compensated should be be terminated or choose to leave the company was unclear.

In the Secret Service affidavit, Keough, an attorney and former naval officer, was portrayed as having asserted he was fired for asking too many questions and had come to believe InetGlobal owner Steve Renner had hired him to be a “good face” for the company.

Kallenbach, whose brief said Keough had been fired Jan. 5 — the day before Keough sent the email to Hall — claimed Keough had been fired for cause.

“Mr. Keough was terminated because within a month or so after being hired in late October of 2009, Mr. Keough made no progress in understanding the business, did not fit in with IMC’s rank and file, was unwilling to work with IMC’s board of directors, and attempted to take over IMC’s business from Mr. Steven Renner,” the brief argued.

Secret Service Accused Of Lying

Hopeman asserted in his brief that the Secret Service affidavit contained “intentional and reckless falsehoods” that undermined the probable cause to search.

“In this case, the entire premise of the search warrant affidavit is that little advertising was sold, little was used, and there were no legitimate advertisers,” Hopeman argued. “The search warrant affidavit states that the advertisements ranged from other multi-level marketing sites to affiliate programs, non-English websites, and even iNetGlobal’s home page . . .

“It concluded, without support, that there were ‘few legitimate advertisers,'” Hopeman argued.

At the same time, Hopeman argued that the Secret Service also omitted facts from the affidavit that were favorable to Renner.

“Keough appeared on the company’s website as of January 5, 2010 stating that he intended to recruit new customers from all around the world,” Hopeman asserted. “These are not the same words that Keough spoke to the agents days later when he claimed that the entire business was fraudulent. The agents knew this fact because it is posted on the website, which they studied. This fact if included in the affidavit would have cast substantial doubt on the credibility of the informant, who provided the principal basis for probable cause.”

Hopeman also said the Secret Service painted an unfair picture of how Renner behaved at a January INetGlobal gathering in New York. The Secret Service, which had at least two undercover agents in the room, said Renner often spoke over an interpreter even though many of the attendees had little facility in English, started a pandemonium by handing out $20 bills in exchange for $10 bills, and told at least two different stories about INetGlobal’s revenue figures.

“A viewing of the tapes show that Mr. Renner was very candid about the nature of the business,” Hopeman argued. “During these same presentations, he informed those assembled that this was not an investment, and that one could not earn money by doing nothing. He also explained the internet services that he was selling and made it clear that web hosting, domain registration, and advertising, were his products.”

In previous autosurf prosecutions, the government has argued that surf operators attempt to mask investment programs by calling them something else. Prosecutors in the AdSurfDaily Ponzi case, for example, said that the ASD program was an investment program disguised as an “advertising” program.

It is not uncommon for autosurfs to instruct members to avoid using certain words, including the words “investment” or “investing.” Some autosurf members have scolded others for using the word “investment,” which prosecutors have painted as evidence of the wink-nod nature of autosurfs.

In the ASD case, which was filed in August 2008, the Secret Service described a member speaking to an undercover agent, instructing the agent to be careful not to use certain words.

“Don’t call it investing, you know what I mean, we can get in trouble if we say that, we have to be careful,” the agency quoted an ASD member as saying.

The agency, which asserted in its affidavit in the INetGlobal case that an ASD member tried to recruit an undercover agent to join Renner’s surf, said the ASD member demonstrated the wink-nod nature of the autosurf business.

“The [ASD] member said he had previously been a member of ASD . . . and said, ‘We know what happened there,'” the Secret Service alleged in the INetGlobal affidavit. “The member said he was reluctant to join iNetGlobal due to it being similar to ASD. The member said, ‘we all know what this program is.’ The member said his daughter and wife surfed the websites and the member did not care about the services provided. The member said he just wanted to put his money in and get it out.”

Hopeman, though, said the Secret Service was wrong.

“On February 23, 2010, the United States Secret Service strapped on its guns and raid jackets, searched the premises of Mr. Renner s business, took all of its documents and computers, seized over $25 million in cash belonging to the business and its customers, put 75 people out of work, and seized the money for their paychecks and their children s health insurance,” Hopeman argued. “The sealed affidavit was leaked to the press. This was not a cocaine cartel. It was not a mafia front. It was a legitimate business.”

In the ASD case, prosecutors argued that an ASD filing to counter the government’s Ponzi assertions was”full of sound and fury, [but] signifying nothing.â€

How the prosecution intends to respond to INetGlobal’s arguments is unclear.

Hopeman was the attorney for Tom Petters, implicated in a masssive Ponzi scheme in 2008. Petters was convicted in December.

Ken: Whip: Happy for you that you can laugh about it, while hard working people all over the world, â€” and while dedicated employees have their paychecks frozen and their health insurance funds raided.

I believe a similar number of hard working people lost their jobs when Ad Surf Daily was shut down. For as much of a personal hardship as it must have been for them, and they do have my sympathies, the fact that they were no longer employed by a company that was defrauding thousands of people out of millions of dollars has to be considered a net positive for the economy. Wouldn’t you agree Ken? Or should we let ASD open it’s doors to fleece it’s flock again just to give those people their jobs back?

Glim – Can’t speak for ASD — just know a great deal about iNetGlobal and its valuable & effective internet marketing and advertising products, — and how hard the employees — and fellow members — have worked to help people like us, and to help each other, to advertise to get exposure for our small business.

Ken: Whip: Happy for you that you can laugh about it, while hard working people all over the world, â€” and while dedicated employees have their paychecks frozen and their health insurance funds raided.

Ken: Glim â€“ Canâ€™t speak for ASD â€”just know a great deal about iNetGlobal and its valuable & effective internet marketing and advertising products, â€” and how hard the employees â€” and fellow members â€” have worked to help people like us, and to help each other, to advertise to get exposure for our small business.

Yeah…the same excuse was used for ASD. Again, how is it advantageous for Chinese, who can’t speak or read English and don’t have a business to begin with, to see English language based websites and not buy anything yet get paid to view it? The same question applies to the English languaged people that have n idea how to read Chinese. How is that ‘effective internet marketing’? Your lack of facts is pretty funny. All you can do is attempt to attack the far smarter individuals that see this scam for what it is.

Jack Arons: Sounds to me like Ken is one of those out of work employeeâ€™s

And so what if he is? Not everyone has seen an auotsurf program explode, let alone dozens of them. If he were a serial promoter, and thus far I see no evidence that he is, then he deserves every drop of cynicism and callous disregard he displayed to his “down line.” But thus far he seems like an honest “true believer” and let’s face it, iNetGlobal put enough lipstick on it’s autosurf pig to make Tammy Faye Baker long for a simpler, more natural appeal.

I could be wrong, just ask and woman I’ve cohabited with but I’ll tell you who Ken reminds me of, Alasycia. She defended ASD tooth and nail and took a ton of crap for it, fighting tenaciously until she learned enough to alter her position. Since that time we’ve all seen her working to inform people about these scams. But one point she raised that always stuck with me was how important it is to talk to people as people, if we denounce them as the fraud we think they promote it’s far easier for them to ignore even our best intended advice.

So yea, I honestly believe that iNetGlobal will be found guilty of the charges it now faces and that many of it’s promoters are culpable for knowingly facilitating that fraud. I also believe that some well intended individuals who currently support the program and defend it are still victims and we’d do a better job of explaining things to them if we didn’t treat them as if they were knowingly committing a crime. We could call that the “Uncle Festa” rule, but we wont.

I guess its all down to the financials, yet again. Apart from discovering the murky past of the ASD Founder, it was the absence of financials in the defence court documents that got me listening to Glim, Entertained and others.

Much as many of us hate it – the secret to the legality of these companies is more than often in the math, and you cant ignore that, however much you would like to.

Don’t forget that there are people here who really do understand how these schemes work and can explain WHY they are not kosher. Just send them a message and ask.

no Jack. Ken is not an employee of Inet. he’s a big winner in this ponzi. He was over in India recuriting people for inet when this company was closed down. He was talking to people from his latest scam TVI Express.
Ken you say you know Inet? have you seen the books? Are you sure that no money laudering was happening? You know what you were told!! When I started with inet in august of 08, it had two parts Inetglobal and adpacs. I had $50.00 on the inetglobal side and asked for the $50.00 This took place in early 09 when inet was dead,all of the early americans quit. It took months and many e-mails and calls to get the money. I was told by my upline. Inet could not make pay roll and was laying off people right and left, and it took that long for you to get paid because new money had to come in!!!!! Ken be careful what your defending, you don’t know the whole story, and I don’t either. I was very happy the goverment closed this company. On paper if there was an auto-surf that could make it and prove the business model of the auto surf was legal, in a court of law, it was Inetglobal. In august of 08, we were told it had many customers already, 10 years in business,and had many streams of income. DID IT???!!! The problem is for every person like yourself, that used the products 1,000’s believe in the wink and nod of the auto surf, and never had a business that needed the products and wanted the easy money.
Good news Ken,it looks like Inet has expensive lawyers. It’s a start.

Alasycia: Here it is – Sworn Declaration by Attorney Kallenbach, including details about “the math”. It’s part of the court filings Thanks. Ken

Mark J. Kallenbach, Esq. makes the following sworn declaration pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Â§ 1746.
1. Since approximately 1981, I have been licensed as a certified public
accountant by the Minnesota Board of Accountancy.
2. As a certified public accountant, I have prepared hundreds of financial
statements, including audited statements, reviews and compilation reports. I have also prepared hundreds of tax returns.
3. In 1983, I was admitted to practice law in Minnesota. I am admitted to
practice before the federal court for the District of Minnesota, to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and to the United States Tax court.
4. My present law practice consists of consulting with companies which are in
the early stage of development and are experiencing growing pains. I also handle
business litigation, professional malpractice claims, and claims against insurance
companies and banks. I also prosecute appeals when appropriate.
5. In the late 1980s or early 1990s, I placed my license to practice public
accountancy on an inactive status. Since then I have been practicing law and engaging in other business endeavors.
6. In my law practice, I continue to use the skills that I acquired as a certified
public accountant. I analyze at least ten financial statements or similar documents in a given month.
7. On January 13, 2010, Inter-Mark Corporation ( IMC ) employed me on a
monthly basis to assist it with legal matters. Since then, I have acted in that capacity.
8. My investigation shows that Inter-Mark and its subsidiary iNetGlobal and
its other subsidiaries are clean, legitimate and profitable businesses.
9. One of the matters that I was asked to address was IMC s January 5, 2010
termination of Mr. Steven Keough, its President, Chief Executive Officer, and lawyer. Mr. Keough was terminated because within a month or so after being hired in late October of 2009, Mr. Keough made no progress in understanding the business, did not fit in with IMC s rank and file, was unwilling to work with IMC s board of directors, and attempted to take over IMC s business from Mr. Steven Renner.
10. As part of my due diligence in wrapping up IMC s termination of Mr.
Keough s employment, I investigated and explored the reasons for Mr. Keough s
termination.
11. Among other things, I have viewed a marketing tape made by Mr. Keough
on December 29, 2009. This video was posted on iNetGlobal s website on January 5, 2010 for review by customers and the public. iNetGlobal is a subsidiary of Inter-Mark. When the Secret Service viewed the website, it would have seen this video. In it Mr. Keough stated that his focus in 2010 was going to be to recruit many more customers all around the world. He did not say anything about the business being illegal.
12. On January 6, 2010, Mr. Keough attempted to extort over $500,000 from
iNetGlobal. He demanded payment of the money by 5:00 p.m. that day or all bets are off. A copy of the e-mail is attached as Exhibit A.
13. According to the Secret Service s affidavit, Keough contacted the
government in this matter for the first time on January 8, 2010.
14. As of that date, January 8, 2010, Mr. Keough had not informed any officer,
board member, or employee of Inter-Mark or iNetGlobal that he thought there was any illegal activity.
15. On or about January 17, 2010, IMC learned that the United States Secret
Service was conducting an investigation of it.
16. On January 17, 2010 or thereabouts until January 25, 2010, I left three or
four voicemails with Ms. Katherine Westpetal of the United States Secret Service. I asked whether the Secret Service was investigating IMC and informed her that IMC would cooperate with any investigation.
17. On the morning of January 26, 2010, I met with Mr. Keough for breakfast
to discuss his dispute with IMC. The meeting lasted 45 minutes. Mr. Keough presented a three-ring binder to me containing a draft of a 13 page complaint against IMC and others. At no time did Mr. Keough indicate to me that IMC was involved in any illegal business. His complaint was that he had been illegally terminated because he questioned disbursements that were made to Mr. Renner so that Mr. Renner could pay taxes due and owing to the government.
18. On the afternoon of January 26, 2010, Special Agent Westpetal left a voice
message in response to my January 25, 2010 voicemail with her office. She stated in her voicemail message to me that she appreciated my offer of cooperation and stated that she did not think she needed any input at all. She stated its we just have some initial concerns from awhile ago and we ve been looking into it so again, not that big of a deal, nothing that we need cooperation on by any means but if we do deem that appropriate down the line I will definitely give you a call. I never heard anything again from the Secret Service until it executed search warrants on February 23, 2010.
19. I believe there are statements in Ms. Westpetal s affidavits in support of the
search and seizure warrants in this case which are either knowingly false or in reckless disregard of the truth. The entire premise of Ms. Westpetal s first affidavit, Docket No. 3, is that iNetGlobal does not sell any legitimate advertising services. It is a business, she contends, that does not really do business and that depends upon member growth to pay rebates. Â¶46. At paragraph 54, Ms. Westpetal states that Special Agent William Stack had logged into iNetGlobal and begun to visit its paid advertisements. She stated that ads range from other multi-level marketing sites to affiliate programs, non-English websites, and even iNetGlobal s home page. Her affidavit then states Few Legitimate Advertisers.
20. I have visited the website several times myself over the past days since the
search warrant was executed 21. It is not true that the website advertisements include only other multi-level marketing sites, affiliate programs, non-English websites, and iNetGlobal s home page. Anyone who viewed the website would know this.
22. The website indicates the precise number of advertisements that are posted
on iNetGlobal s website by its customers daily. For example on March 23, 2010, there were 19,061 ads posted. Historically there have been between 10,000 and 20,000 ads per day posted. Most of the ads run for a short period of time. A viewer has the option of searching the ads by key word. I have done a random survey of the ads posted in the days since February 23 and have found ads for small businesses selling numerous goods and services, including bowling lessons, golf lessons, nutritional supplements, purified water, camera equipment, photograph lessons, investments in foreign currency exchanges, optical products, wedding services, fishing secrets, soccer conditioning, gardening manuals for organic vegetables, travel agency services, manuals on building high performance computers, dental hygiene clinics, food recipes, making wine and beer
at home, golf, Chinese medicine, acupuncture and herbs, home woodworking, coffee, real estate sales, auto insurance, online grocery shopping, and thousands of other businesses, each of which is selling products unique to that business. I estimate 90% of the ads are in English. It is simply false to say there are Few Legitimate Advertisers or to say the ads only include multi-level marketing sites, affiliate sites, non-English websites, and iNetGlobal s home page. It is false to say there was no legitimate business, and false to say iNetGlobal depended only on member growth for revenue.
23. SA Westpetal states at paragraph 56 that customers were paid to view ads
even when it was impossible to view them. The reason customers were given credit on these three days was due to technical problems with the platform on those days. This was an isolated incident. Most of these customers had paid for the right to view ads, and to receive discounts for viewing. There was no regular practice of paying customers to view ads when there were none to be viewed.
24. Other false statements in the Westpetal affidavit involve paragraphs 63-69.
25. These paragraphs describe an iNetGlobal seminar at which Mr. Renner
spoke in New York on January 23, 2010. In fact, it was a two day seminar extending into January 24, 2010. I have watched a tape of parts of that seminar. These paragraphs are false by omission. On January 24, Mr. Renner clearly told those present that iNetGlobal was a sales company, that iNetGlobal did not guarantee that the customers would make any money, that no commissions were paid unless a sale is made, and that commissions could be earned only through the customers own efforts. The Westpetal affidavit does not tell the court of these disclaimers.
26. Paragraph 67 of the Westpetal affidavit specifically describes a subsidiary
of iNetGlobal called V-Local. SA Westpetal implies that V-Local has very few listings and its search engine does not work.
27. SA Westpetal describes in paragraph 67 searching for coffee shop in
Minneapolis, Minnesota on V-Local, and finding no results. Westpetal also alleges that when she searched under coffee shop, food and dining, six coffee shops in Iowa, Kansas and other states were identified, only one of which was in Minnesota. She also describes searching on V-Local for gym and restaurant .
28. To test Ms. Westpetal s affidavit, on March 3, 2010, I did a search on VLocal
for restaurant. As Ms. Westpetal stated, the search yielded no results. However,
the user is urged by the program to use a less generic, more specific key word.
Accordingly, I searched in Minneapolis, Minnesota for Chinese restaurant and located six restaurants in V-Local. I searched for Mexican restaurant in Minneapolis and was given twelve listings. I searched for barbeque restaurants, and was given six listings. I also found two Mediterranean restaurants.
29. I then searched for coffee shops in Minneapolis, Minnesota and came up
with six listings in the Minneapolis area. Ms. Westpetal s affidavit is false in stating that V-Local is populated only with one coffee shop in all of Minnesota, and no gymnasiums or restaurants. Anyone viewing the website would see this then and now.
30. The true facts are that V-Local has 3,511,000 businesses listed on its search
engine. iNetGlobal purchased the right to populate V-Local with these listings from a company called Info USA. In addition, V-Local has sold 37,832 additional listings by new customers on V-Local.
31. I believe that if the Court knew of the above false statements made by SA
Westpetal, it would not have signed the search and seizure affidavits in this case.
32. The effect of the seizure of the business assets and records is to put almost
75 people out of work. These are workers of modest means. Eight of them are computer programmers. Some of the programmers work in research and development. Some employees are in customer service. Some have language expertise in Mandarin, Russian, and Spanish. Some are salespeople. Some are accountants and bookkeepers. The money seized was in part for their paychecks. It was in part for payment of their children s health insurance premiums.
33. The money seized, $25 million in all, consists of approximately $11 million
which is owed to customers of iNetGlobal.
34. iNetGlobal is not an investment business. It makes no promise of return on
investments. It sells internet services to individuals and to small businesses. Most of its revenues come from the sale of those services.
35. iNetGlobal sells a product called V-Web which is a web hosting service. It
provides customers a place where they can set up their own websites. It also provides customers a place where they can register their proprietary domain names. Approximately 50,000 customers have purchased the right to set up websites. So far, 2,378 websites have been set up. As the business is less than 18 months old, most websites have been set up within the last six months. The sales trend here is up.
24 websites were set up in April of 2009, 91 in September of 2009, 338 in December of 2009, 361 in January of 2010, and 327 in February of 2010, even though the month was shortened by the execution of the search warrant affidavit.
36. 50,000 customers have purchased the right to register their domain names.
So far 3,031 have registered their domain names with V-Web. The sales trend here is also up over time.
37. The Court may ask why so few websites and domain names have been
registered. The Court should understand that most of the customers are older people in their 40s, 50s and 60s who have no experience with the use of the internet to set up a website, register a domain name, do advertising, or run a business. Many of our customers are neophytes. They are gradually learning these skills.
38. iNetGlobal also sells a product called V-Mail and e-mail marketing service.
It provides a way for customers to create an e-mailing marketing list and to communicate with their own customers.
39. Another product is called V-Shops which provides a way for businesses to
sell online to their customers.
40. Another service sold is called V-Train. This is an online training service
which teaches customers how to register domain names, to set up their own websites, to establish their own e-mail marketing service, and to market their business on the internet. It allows a customer to view hundreds of hours of films, still shots and text that teaches them these skills.
41. iNetGlobal also sells online trafficking and advertising services. There are
two principal services. One is the Acesse search engine, which is similar to Yahoo,
Google and Bing. The company has a development agreement with Yahoo. Yahoo
allows Acesse to use its search results in the Acesse search engine for free. At some point when Acesse builds enough volume, Yahoo will begin to charge for this service.
42. The second service is a pay per view platform where customers place
their own advertisements for their own businesses. In doing so, customers generate more traffic to their websites which are hosted by iNetGlobal, and to any websites they may have which are not hosted by iNetGlobal. They are also able to sell goods and services directly to their own customers.
43. iNetGlobal also sells a service called V-Local, described above at Â¶30.
44. Another service sold is V-Webcast which sells online conferencing services
to allow people to conduct online video and audio conferences over the internet.
45. Another service sold is V-Newswire. It sells press release services. For a
fee, the company will write and distribute press releases over the internet. INetGlobal purchased the right to distribute press releases to over 800,000 media outlets around the world.
46. Most of the company s revenues come from customer purchases of the web
hosting, domain registration, web training, e-mail services and advertising. The sale of advertising generates the most revenue. The most important thing a business needs are these services, which allow it to register a domain name, get the websites up and running (many have more than one), place their weblogs, promotions, and advertisements.
47. Most of the customers about two-thirds and it is this point that the
Secret Service did not grasp are constantly putting new money into the business in the form of monthly subscription fees and advertising purchases. Most of the customers buy services on an ongoing monthly basis. Most of the customers are not just surfing ads, as the Secret Service suggests. New money from new customers is not being used to pay off old customers.
48. It is possible for customers to earn commissions. To do so they register as
sales consultants for $59.95 and they sell the company s services to other people. They can get a commission for doing so. They can also get a commission by recruiting someone else to sell on their sales team. For example, one could sell advertising to another person to be placed on the pay per view platform.
49. No one gets commissions simply by recruiting a consultant. The new
consultant has to make a retail sale of one of the company s services. Then both the
consultant and the new recruit share in the commission.
50. It is critical to know that all commissions are calculated by the computer
software on a daily basis. And the accounting is done daily. When the company incurs a liability to a consultant for commissions, the commission is immediately booked on an accrual basis and the money is set aside in a separate escrow account to pay the commissions. A given sales consultant s commissions are tracked, escrowed, and paid out to the customer within two weeks upon request. This business has never paid out more money than it took in. It has never promised to pay out more money than it took in. It has never paid old customers their commissions with monies from new customers.
51. You will see in the seizure returns that the Secret Service seized $25
million or so. Of that $25 million, $11 million is money that was escrowed for
customers. Of the $25 million, many thousands represent employee pay and health
insurance premiums. The company had monies escrowed to cover all commissions
owed, and to cover taxes as well. The tax money was also seized by the Secret Service.
52. The books and records of the company support what I say. In a Ponzi
scheme, the liabilities of the company increase drastically over time. Its cash on hand, however stays flat or even declines. The books and records of the company over the past 14 months show that as the liabilities of the company have increased, the revenues and the cash on hand have increased even more. For the last 3 months the liabilities have been only about 11 percent of the cash on hand. All of these figures are in financial statements prepared independent of Mr. Renner.
53. There is an iNet surf program. It relates to the advertising. It is too
complicated to fully explain in this space. In essence, one can sign up to participate as a free surfer. This is free. It does not cost anything. If one free surfs, meaning clicks on the customers advertisements posted on the company s pay per view platform, the customer can get gift coupons to redeem through Amazon.com. There are 10,000 to 20,000 customer ads posted at any one time. The ads are changing daily. Some of them are up only for a few days. If a customer clicks on 25,000 ads for 30 seconds at a time, the customer can get a $25 gift certificate. That is all. The free surfers do not getanything else. The company purchased the gift cards from Amazon. The cash reserves to cover this obligation going forward are also escrowed.
54. There is another form of surfing. The customers who pay in monthly can
earn back a percentage of the services they purchase. They do this by viewing the ads on the iNetGlobal website. If a customer purchases $100 in webhosting service, for example, the customer can get up to $50 back from the company by viewing ads posted by advertisers.
55. Here is the value of the advertising with iNetGlobal: a. There are so many surfers on the pay per view ad platform that an nadvertiser is assured of immediate eyeballs seeing the ads, there being 1.5 million page views per day. Within minutes of any ad being posted, it is being viewed. It is as efficient as a television ad.
b. The market s brand awareness of the product or service the advertiser is selling is increased. c. Advertisers drive customers to their own websites, enabling them to sell their perfumes, or auto parts, or paper products, or whatever. d. Viewers from 120 countries view the ads. e. The customer optimizes his website s profile on the major search engines. The more ad views he accumulates, the more credibility he or she has with Google, Yahoo, Bing and Acesse. His rankings by
these engines based on customer hits will increase and result in even more traffic. Some of iNetGlobal s customers are ranked first by Google in their business specialties in their communities. f. Viewers do not have to randomly surf. They can search for goods and services by keyword. g. iNetGlobal gives the advertiser detailed statistics showing the impression (how many times the ad is shown on iNetGlobal s rotator) and clicks (how many times the ad is viewed), which allows
the advertiser to target a specific market.
56. As of the date of the warrants, the vast majority of the customers were
paying monthly for services. 50,000 customers pay for monthly web hosting services, 50,000 for domain registration, and 50,000 for online training. 40,000 pay for monthly email marketing services. 40,000 pay each month for advertising.
57. All payments back to customers are strictly limited. The company does not
incur obligations it cannot pay.
58. Mr. Renner was putting most of the revenues back into the business. He
was about to purchase a building for expansion space. He was pouring hundreds of
thousands of dollars into software development. He was hiring more employees.
59. SA Westpetal contends in paragraph 59 of her affidavit that this is a Ponzi
scheme because of the absence of any reasonable or legitimate business nvestment.
60. It is obvious that the Secret Service did not have in its possession IMC s
financial statements. In order to ensure the accuracy of IMC s financial and tax
reporting, it retained the CPA firm of Lethert, Skwira, Schultz & Co., LLP, which
prepared the statements. I have reviewed them. 61. The books show that for the 12 month fiscal year ending October 31, 2009, IMC s sales amounted to approximately $47.4 million with an after tax net income of $1.7 million. For the month of November 2009 IMC s sales were $16.7 million with an after tax net income of $0.56 million. For the month of December 2009, IMC s sales were $22.8 million with an after tax net income of $0.7 million. For the month of
January 2010, IMC s sales were $29.5 million with an after tax net income of $1.2
million.
62. The books show that for the fiscal year ending on October 31, 2009, IMC
had cash on hand of $8.3 million. Its total liabilities amounted to $7.5 million leaving a cash surplus of $0.8 million. For the month of November 2009, IMC s total cash amounted to $10.7 million and its total liabilities amounted to $9.8 million, leaving a cash surplus of $0.9 million. For the month of December 2009, IMC s total cash amounted to $14.5 million, its total liabilities amounted to $12.9 million, leaving a cash surplus of $1.7 million. For the month of January 2010, IMC s cash amounted to $15.7 million, its total liabilities amounted to $12.7 million, leaving a cash surplus of $3 million.
63. The accounting firm based its numbers upon numbers provided to it by
IMC s finance and accounting department. I know from my study of the business that Mr. Renner does not have anything to do with the generation of the figures that the accounting department in turn uses. The accounting department uses figures generated by the computer system run by other persons.
64. Based on my 30 years of experience in the business and legal communities,
I believe that if IMC was closed today, and all of its obligations paid, IMC would still have as of January 31, 2010 $4.5 million in cash.
65. My investigation has also revealed that the informant Steven Keough told
numerous lies to the United States Secret Service.
66. The entire premise of Keough s falsehoods to the Secret Service, and of the
Secret Service s affidavit, is that money from new customers is being used to pay
obligations to old customers. I have analyzed the business. This is not the case. Over the course of the life of the business there has been a constant flow of new money injected into the business by old customers who are continuing to purchase IMC s products and services on a monthly basis. On March 2, 2010, I asked IMC to produce a listing of its ongoing customers for me. This report showed that IMC has 9,566 customers who pay $20 per month for web hosting, e-mail marketing services, and training. In addition, there are 39,169 customers who pay $40 per month to IMC for web hosting, e-mail marketing services and training, and V-Mail. Thus, IMC receives approximately $1,758,080 in recurring sales from old customers each month. This is the opposite of what one would expect in a Ponzi scheme, where no new money comes in from old customers. IMC has collected millions of dollars in monthly subscription fees since October of 2009. This is why it had the cash on hand to meet all of its obligations, until the Secret Service took the cash.
67. At paragraphs 60-62 of the Westpetal affidavit, the Secret Service is very
critical of iNetGlobal s customer service. This impression is based upon falsehoods
conveyed by Keough. When Keough first began working at the company, the company had just installed new servers. Thus, the system was down a tiny bit more frequently than before the installation of the new servers. I have been provided with documents which have recorded the amount of time that the servers and computer programs have been up and operating at iNetGlobal during the time that Keough was employed there, from October 27, 2009 through January 5, 2010. The servers were up 99.97% of the time when Keough was employed there. They were offline approximately 3 minutes total in 8 weeks. During the same period of time, the programs on the servers were working 99.395% of the time. There were approximately 500 minutes over that 8 weeks where customers could not use the actual site. This amounted to approximately 1 hour per week.
68. Paragraph 44 of the Westpetal affidavit contends that there was only one
iNetGlobal employee available to assist customers in placing their advertisements on the rotator. This misconceives the business. In truth, the customers place their own advertisements on the rotator based upon the online training that is available to them. In truth, when Keough was employed at the company there were 10 iNetGlobal employees and some employees of Cash Cards, another subsidiary, who worked in a call center room that was charged with taking calls from customers in 4 languages. Keough was well aware that there were 10 persons minimum available to service the customers. Keough also went to Canada to meet with 4 of the support people there.
69. Paragraph 51 of the Westpetal affidavit contends the auto repurchase
feature of the computer program could not be turned off, forcing customers to re-invest
their money rather than cashing out. Paragraph 60 recounts Keough s claims of his
conversations on January 11 with a Nevada customer. Paragraph 61 recounts West petal s registration as a free surfer and her attempt to cancel the auto repurchase feature.
70. There have been no significant problems with the auto repurchase feature.
It is completely optional and can be turned off at any time. Customers have had other problems with cashing out, which were usually due to their not filling out the proper IRS W-9 form, and other reasons. These problems were all resolved by customer service. SA Westpetal recounts the experience of a single Nevada customer who was unable to cash out due to the auto repurchase problem. This customer is well known to iNetGlobal. He has consumed more customer service time than any other customer.
He is unskilled with computers and the internet. On six separate occasion he was
incapable of absorbing the instructions he was given.
72. SA Westpetal did not understand, or chose not to tell the court, that as a
free surfer she was not earning any money which she could cash out. The auto
repurchase feature does not even apply to a free surfer account. Whether it is on or off for a free surfer is irrelevant.
73. Paragraph 48 of the Westpetal affidavit says that Keough claims there were
only 30,000 customers, not 50,000. I have reviewed company records which show that as of January 5, the day Keough was fired, the company had a total of 69,551 customers. 24,259 of them were free surfers. 45,292 of them were paying customers. Mr. Keough lied to the Secret Service by claiming there were only 30,000 customers.
74. Paragraph 49 of the Secret Service affidavit is incoherent. It contends that
Keough stated that at least 87% of the company s revenue was generated from the sale of memberships to members residing in China. It then goes on to describe the revenue for the company, and in very confusing terms gives the impression that overall revenue was $28 million, 87% of which came from China, only one quarter of one percent of which was from the sale of outside income, namely the sale of 1,000 memberships at $59.95 each. The false impression is, this was the company s only source of outside income. I have reviewed documents and computer printouts from the company which show that this is totally false. First, the total revenue for the company from its inception on all products is $96,231,692. This means that when Mr. Renner states at seminars that the company s revenue has been $100 million, he is substantially correct.
75. Second, the $59.95 sales kit only generates a small amount of the
company s revenue. The company has sold 50,078 consulting kits, despite Mr. Keough s contention that only 1,000 were sold. These sales brought in $2,959,454 altogether. The bulk of the company s revenues come from the sale of the advertising. Customers, old and new, pay fees on an ongoing basis for the right to post advertisements.
76. Just one week prior to the February 23, 2010 execution of the search
warrant, IMC was in the process of renting 4,000 square feet of additional space for customer service representatives and was seeking an executive to train customer service representatives. I believe that Keough was aware of these plans. In 2008, IMC hired skilled and competent attorneys from the firm of Reece & Grimes, who are familiar with marketing law, FTC rules and regulations, and the like. IMC has also employed counsel outside of the United States to ensure compliance with foreign law.
77. 75 people lost their jobs on February 23, 2010, as a result of these warrants.
They were computer programmers, computer program researchers and developers,
customer service workers, accountants, and sales people. Since the warrants, the
company made the business decision not to take in new money from customers. It has no cash. It has survived by hiring back a skeleton crew and borrowing money to pay employees and for working capital. 78. I attach as Exhibit B, a news article dated February 25, 2010 at 1:41 a.m. by
Patrick Pretty, a journalist, posted online. The article shows that as of that date and time, the journalist had in his possession a copy of the search warrant affidavit in this case. As of that time, the affidavit was still sealed, and no returns had been made to the court, according to the docket sheet. As of February 25, 2010, I had tried to get a copy of the affidavit. I was informed by the U.S. Attorney s Office it was sealed. I was not provided a copy until February 26, 2010 at 1:57 p.m., 36 hours after the press had it. Someone leaked the affidavit to the press.
79. I have learned that the Secret Service agents investigating this case are
informing customers, witnesses, and employees that Steven Renner is running a Ponzi scheme. I believe it is an improper investigative technique to suggest answers to a witness. They have also told employees they cannot have a lawyer present when the Secret Service interviews them.
80. Attorney-client privileged documents were seized, both in electronic and
hard copy forms. They were demanded back from the government. The government refused to return them.
81. I have made this declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1746. I declare under
the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.
/s/ Mark J. Kallenbach
Mark J. Kallenbach, Esq.

Now according to this filing, it is claimed that there were between 10,000 and 20,000 ads per day. Just so you know that is 833.33 ads per hour, or 13.9 ads per second a person would have to view. So what we are to believe is that everyone who was surfing could view 13.9 ads per second and 833.33 ads per hour. I think Mr. Kallenbach has a lot of “splainin” to do.

One of the things the defense arguments do is destroy the claim from at least one INetGlobal upline that the judge already has “ordered the ‘Feds’ to release iNetGlobal payroll monies back to the company.”

The claim was made nearly two weeks ago, before INetGlobal’s attorneys even filed their arguments asking for money to be released.

Imagine being a member of that downline, and being told two weeks ago that the judge ordered payroll monies released.

Now, imagine being a member of that downline and finding out yesterday that, not only had the judge NOT released the payroll monies, he hadn’t even seen the argument for its release yet or any arguments from the government in opposition to the release.

I don’t know how the government intends to respond to INetGlobal’s arguments. What I do know is that it argued vigorously AGAINST the release in the ASD case out of concern the money could be “lost” to crime victims if it was released.

In other words, if the employees got paid — and if any sum in excess of what was needed to pay employees was released — there would be less money to compensate victims. In the ASD case, the judge sided with the prosecution’s argument.

The judge in the INetGlobal case will have to weigh some of the same issues as the judge in the ASD case.

Moreover, in the INetGlobal case, it is alleged that many of the victims may be Chinese, including Chinese from Mainland China, and they may have limited or no facility in English.

So, not only are the legal issues serious, there may be diplomatic issues as well.

We’ve mentioned this before, but the manner in which some of the surfs operate put the United States in the position of being accused of exporting Ponzi schemes.

If an autosurf Ponzi is operating inside the United States — and if it is having trouble recruiting U.S. citizens because of the well-documented cases of ASD, 12DailyPro, PhoenixSurf and CEP and is specifically targeting citizens of other countries and cultures — it potentially sets the stage for the United States to be embarrassed.

“We don’t like your program for enforcing intellectual-property rights,” the United States might say to the diplomats of certain countries.

“We don’t like the fact that your Ponzi schemers now are coming after our people,” diplomats of certain countries might say to the United States.

Lynn: re: “splainin to do”. It appears you have a scotoma. Say, 15000 ads X 400 budget per day – 6 million.
Patrick: “victims” – You use the term “Pretty Loosely”. If you read the Kallenbach declaration, there would be no victims but for the money being held by the Feds. The real problem that I have with most people that comment on this blog is that their real hatred is for “profits”. Once again, here is the definition of Ponzi: â€œA Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned”. â€¦ If you consider the idea that the Kallenbach Declaration might just possibly be substantively correct as to “the math”, then one might conclude, as Kallenbach did, this is the opposite of a Ponzi. Now I am beginning to understand guys like you — you don’t like the “P—–” word. (Profit, that is.) It seems, by your standards, every business that makes a profit must be a Ponzi, which makes no sense. Profit is the antithesis of Ponzi. The crux of this case is: “Is iNetGlobal a Ponzi?” — not according to what I have seen so far. “Is iNetGlobal profitable?” Yes, based on what I have seen so far. Do you folks have a problem with that??? By the way, do you have any demographic info about how many English-speaking live in China, or how many Chinese people that live other places in the world speak English?? Oh, and one more thing — Steve Keough — he represented that he speaks Chinese. Have you asked anyone that is lingual in both English and Chinese how competent Keough is with the Chinese language? I have. You will not like the answer.

Ken: Lynn:re: â€œsplainin to doâ€. It appears you have a scotoma. Say, 15000 ads X 400 budget per day â€“ 6 million.
Patrick: â€œvictimsâ€ â€“ You use the term â€œPretty Looselyâ€. If you read the Kallenbach declaration, there would be no victims but for the money being held by the Feds.

Yeah, ASD tried that argument also. You are still allowed to operate, and since you claim there is indeed outside revenue (that has not been proven in the least yet) then there is no need to worried about the seized money. It won;t affect the operations. If it was seized improperly, it will be returned when proven so.

KenThe real problem that I have with most people that comment on this blog is that their real hatred is for â€œprofitsâ€.

I have no problems with anyone making profit on legitimate businesses. Please post the proof where anyone else does have a problem.

Once again, here is the definition of Ponzi: â€œA Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earnedâ€. â€¦ If you consider the idea that the Kallenbach Declaration might just possibly be substantively correct as to â€œthe mathâ€, then one might conclude, as Kallenbach did, this is the opposite of a Ponzi.Now I am beginning to understand guys like you â€”you donâ€™t like the â€œPâ€”â€“â€ word. (Profit, that is.) It seems, by your standards, every business that makes a profit must be a Ponzi, which makes no sense.Profit is the antithesis of Ponzi.The crux of this case is:â€œIs iNetGlobal a Ponzi?â€â€” not according to what I have seen so far.â€œIs iNetGlobal profitable?â€Yes, based on what I have seen so far.Do you folks have a problem with that???By the way, do you have any demographic info about how many English-speaking live in China, or how many Chinese people that live other places in the world speak English??Oh, and one more thing â€”Steve Keough â€”he represented that he speaks Chinese.Have you asked anyone that is lingual in both English and Chinese how competent Keough is with the Chinese language?I have.You will not like the answer.

A ponzi is paying older members with newer members money when there is no outside revenue. No outside revenue has been stated. Just saying there is doesn’t make it so. Just ask Geryy Nehra. If everything is so legit, then why are members complaining?

Why the need to constantly deflect using the irrelevant Keough incident instead of just addressing the real questions??

[ADMIN NOTE: Poster who has used three different usernames and three different email addresses — all from the same IP — has been blocked by the security software from posting twice in this thread already today. Abuse pattern from this IP began Feb. 26. It is NOT acceptable to create multiple forum identities to create the appearance two or more people are advocating for a company when it is the same person posting under different names.]

One good thing about the INetGlobal scam, (if any “good” can come out of the closing down of “ANOTHER” one of these abominations) is that there isn’t the usual 12 or 18 months of lag time between public exposure on the usual suspect “naysayer” forums and blogs as there was with ASD and others.

At least this time, when “Ken” and other apologists present the usual arguments which, not surprisingly, almost match, word for word those presented in defense of ASD/Bowdoin, no “new” money can be lost.

Everything from here on in is mere academic discussion and froth and bubbles.

As has been said before, but bears repeating for those having only their first or second foray into the HYIP/Autosurf “industry”

This isn’t TV.

Once a fraud gets to the stage of being publicly named by the Secret Service, FBI and/or DoJ, what you see is NOT what you get.

The prosecution holds ALL the cards and they ain’t showin’ nobody nuttin’ unless they absolutely HAVE to.

Even then, it will likely be done on the “drip feed” system, one sordid fact at a time, at least until the criminal trial proper begins.

And so far the actual independently audited financials have not been presented. It is only these that will establish the truth, and not the opinion of an attorney, who used to be a CPA and who is being paid by iNetGlobal.

Ken: 63. The accounting firm based its numbers upon numbers provided to it by
IMC s finance and accounting department. I know from my study of the business that Mr. Renner does not have anything to do with the generation of the figures that the accounting department in turn uses. The accounting department uses figures generated by the computer system run by other persons.

In short, the CPA firm mentioned reviewed the financial statements provided to them by Renner’s employees but did not investigate the basis of those statements themselves. There are other readers of this blog who can do a far better job than I in explaining the differences involved between reviewing a financial statement and conducting a certified audit, but in very lose layman’s approximation the former is somewhat like having them check your math, the latter is closer to having them stake the reputation in their professional judgment on the numbers involved having been arrived at in strict compliance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The report that Mr.Kallenbach makes reference to above is most certainly not a certified audit by the way he describes it.

I love the part where Mr.Kallenbach seems to insist that the numbers must be accurate because “Mr. Renner does not have anything to do with the generation of the figures.” First, it ~seems~ like an admission that the court might suspect the books would be cooked if he did, recent felony convictions for financial (tax) fraud have that effect. Secondly it seems to imply that even though Steve hired the people who keep the books and run the computer systems and paid for the accounting software, he has no earthly way of exerting influence over any of them.

Mr.Kallenbach is being a zealous advocate for his client, which is exactly what he should be doing. If facts need to be twisted in that process, it’s part of what he’s paid to do.

Iâ€™m sure you have already seen the latest post by Ken Haugen entitled Is Steven Keough, Whistleblower, a Criminal? on his http://cheapclix.net/ website. A clear case of making someone out to be guilty until proved innocent, the very thing Mr. Haugen accuses you and others of doing in the case of iNetGlobal and its owner Steve Renner. Whilst no charges have yet been brought against Renner in relation to iNetGlobal, he does have to walk around with a GPS tracking device attached to his leg because of his previous conviction in December 2009 for tax fraud and evasion.

Unfortunately, I cannot challenge this obvious hypocrisy on Ken Haugenâ€™s own website because Iâ€™ve tried previously, without success. Any comment that is in any way critical of iNetGlobal remains awaiting moderation for many days and then is trashed. This may explain why he has so few comments on his Cheapclix blog. Most of the ones he does have are his own Twitter trackbacks or comments by Diane Haugen, his wife.

Ken Haugen of Cheapclix is, as you and most readers of the PP Blog know, the same â€˜Kenâ€™ who is regularly posting his own comments here. Therefore may I take advantage of the freedom of discussion you allow on the PP blog, to ask â€˜Ken,â€™
â€¢ Why does he not allow anyone to respond on his blog, to his many accusations against Steven Keough, the FBI, James Walsh of the Star Tribune etc unless they 100% agree with his point of view?
â€¢ Why he thinks it is perfectly in order to make Steven Keough out to be guilty until he can prove his innocence, based on edited extracts from a few emails, and yet continues to bitterly complain about those who he accuses of doing the same to Steve Renner when the evidence contained in the affidavit filed by the FBI seems to most fair-minded people, pretty conclusive?
â€¢ Why does he continue to leave up a completely false press release entitled â€˜Hospitalera.com apologies to iNetGlobalâ€™ when the hospitalera website has clearly stated it was false and the link to the prlog.org website shows â€˜Press Release Errorâ€™ because it has been taken down?

It’s really sad to see the same old tired defense arguments FOR the Ponzi Schemes, over and over again.

It just shows a complete lack of basic mathematic skills.

I just wish the authorities would present the simple sum total evidence that the business models are impossible.

All that needs to be done, in all cases, including ASD, InetGlobal, etc. is to show the total cash on hand vs. total “ad packs” outstanding (or whatever inetglobal called them).

The cash will ALWAYS be less than the total outstanding Ad Packs which makes the company and the model insolvent immediately.

And, as we all know, the longer the ponzi operates, the more “out of whack” the cash vs. adpacks comparison gets.

PERIOD.

I just wish the government would, at some point, use an ASD or a 12DailyPro as a “Teaching Moment” to educate the public as to WHY these ponzis are illegal, immoral, unethical and most importantly, unsustainable.

[ADMIN NOTE: Poster in this space sought to comment in support of INetGlobal. That’s perfectly acceptable, of course. What is NOT ACCEPTABLE is creating multiple forum identities to voice your support. The nonsensical email address used by this would-be poster is associated with at least three other forum identities.]